Users who spread false/fake/unhelpful information on technical board

[ESG]

....

I hope you take this in good faith and not just dismiss me but rather educate me

This isn't kindergarten. If you're here to learn to write posts instead of to learn about Bitcoin, you came to the wrong place.

(I feel like I want to get the blueprint to making quality posts)

Read more, post less.

-accurate and surgical!

[OsaiEmma]

I hope you take this in good faith and not just dismiss me but rather educate me

This isn't kindergarten. If you're here to learn to write posts instead of to learn about Bitcoin, you came to the wrong place.

I never wanted to reply to this but I'd like to say my piece on it, I'm not talking about what I'm here for, that objective is clear, and I've read a lot and learned a lot from people in the forum, things like, security, best investment practices, Bitcoin uniqueness, what Bitcoin community (Bitcointalk) really think about Bitcoin, some tech aspects of Bitcoin, e.t.c alot I've learned.

What I'm talking about is how to interact in the community without having labels like "shitposter" in my profile, or is it that I should just read, and not interact, grow, and participate in forum activities and incentives, if that's it I don't think it makes any sense honestly.

[nutildah]

What I'm talking about is how to interact in the community without having labels like "shitposter" in my profile, or is it that I should just read, and not interact, grow, and participate in forum activities and incentives, if that's it I don't think it makes any sense honestly.

You're not here for the right reasons. You won't "grow" here no matter how many accounts you make, because you're not here to actually learn anything. I just told you what I would do, and you plowed right through it like I'd never even said it. Your posts are bad and I feel you have multiple accounts, therefore my tag is accurate as far as I'm concerned. If you want me to remove it, prove me wrong on one of these two things.

[OsaiEmma]

You're not here for the right reasons. You won't "grow" here no matter how many accounts you make, because you're not here to actually learn anything.

I'm here to be a part of the Bitcointalk community, by learning more about Bitcoin, and engaging actively in the community, and I felt like I have been doing just fine until the day I posted a wrong information on the tech board which I was cautioned and corrected about, before it weirdly escalated.

I just told you what I would do, and you plowed right through it like I'd never even said it. Your posts are bad and I feel you have multiple accounts, therefore my tag is accurate as far as I'm concerned. If you want me to remove it, prove me wrong on one of these two things.

I thought we have been through this but it seems you're still insistent on your point despite the proofs, and points I have made, but it's ok, I don't have any more words for you about my legitimacy and claim of not being an account farmer, if the ones I have made is not enough, so be it.

As I have said before, calling me a shitposter is subjective, and I'm not saying you're wrong cause u guys obviously are more experienced than I am, and I do value experience cause it is the best teacher, so I am asking, give me tips and pointers on making good post, the only I have was by Bitcoin_Arena. He gave good pointers and those that I see I'm having short comings on I take.

I don't want to continue, and this will probably be my last post here, I've given my points, reasoning, and proof, but if it isn't accept, good, nothing I can do about, have a nice day you'll

[TokenTikas]

I don't want to continue, and this will probably be my last post here, I've given my points, reasoning, and proof, but if it isn't accept, good, nothing I can do about, have a nice day you'll

I have gone through all the posts here about your issue. But from what I can see that you keep trying to repeat one particular point, which is that you want people to correct your mistakes and give you better tips and points so you can make good posts. However, you joined this forum around the end of 2024, more than a full year has already passed, yet you are saying you have not gotten good points or tips on how to make better posts here. Honestly, that claim does not really sound reasonable.

Normally, I will try to say something by bringing up one of your early posts from the beginning of your journey in this forum, following the direction of your search for good tips and useful points so that you can make better posts.

Now, i know, yeah I'm a newbie, but in here, gaining merits is so difficult, I was wondering, what is the best way to gain merits, so many people won't want to just give merits, and in my own opinion, I think every newbie should have a kind of startup merit, maybe send able or personal or even both so as to navigate in this space.
For sure, this forum is one of the best forums so far when it comes to navigating in the crypto space, all thanks to the founder of Bitcoin and the whole management team, with that being said, I think this my opinion needs to be taken into consideration, provide a newbie startup merits so as to build from there, thanks

Since you made that post, all the reply posts that came under it were informative, many people even helped you by sharing important links so you could understand the forum better and make good posts. Do you still want to say that you have not get any useful or informative information from this forum?
Without doubt, the replies under that post were informative and they shared important links meant to guide you on how to make better posts in the forum.
Even though it is not really right to speak to you in a scolding way, based on your actions, what LoyceV said is 100% correct, because you have stayed here for more than a year and still keep saying you came here to learn. Nobody will hold your hand and start teaching you after over a year in the forum and then you make these kinds of statements after making mistakes, which is not acceptable. You have already received enough directional ideas from your early posts, so if you check that particular post again, you will find all the necessary information there.

This isn't kindergarten. If you're here to learn to write posts instead of to learn about Bitcoin, you came to the wrong place.

You're not here for the right reasons. You won't "grow" here no matter how many accounts you make, because you're not here to actually learn anything.

Deeply agree with you because even though he has been here for more than a year, he still has not been able to learn anything, so even if he stays here for a longer time, he will not learn unless he is willing to make a real effort to learn.

OsaiEmma,
As a good advice for you, you should stop making this kind of Shit/low-quality posts and try to prove yourself in the right way by making better posts in the forum. Normally, this type of neutral tag does not cause any serious issue, it only serves as a simple warning through the neutral tag, these neutral tags will not affect your progress moving forward.

[ABCbits]

User: Easteregg69

Additional information (optional):
* This user receive at least 2 neutral tag due to spamming.

List of post:

Think about getting a wallet where the battery don't run out.

This reply posted on thread Cake wallet - Discussion and News, where it's a software wallet. So suggesting finding wallet that won't run out of battery doesn't make sense/off-topic, since it's not hardware wallet.

The main reason I am using the wallet is because of bitcoin. I have been unable to make use of sub 1 sat/vbyte fee for bitcoin transaction, I hope this would be possible very soon. It will not be good for people to be wasting money on fee when they can pay far lesser in fee

Don't go below recommended. Or your btc gets stuck in mempool for ages. NOT included in a block.

It's like an auction. Who pays most gets included.

Overbid and you loose money. Stick with fast or recommended.

It's likely user @Karl_3000 made that reply since website such as https://mempool.space/ usually recommend fee below 1 sat/vB. So his suggestion isn't helpful in this case.

Both post are off-topic.

User: walletrecovery

Additional information (optional):
* Alt of known scammer, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2544574.msg54255920#msg54255920.

List of post:
--snip--

This user spam on technical board again. See his deleted posts, https://bitlist.co/search?author=walletrecovery&only_deleted=true&limit=20&sort_by=date_desc.

[ABCbits]

User: BLEIOT

Additional information (optional):
* I suspect this user also use AI/chatbot generated text.

List of post:

FORMAL DISCLOSURE: SYSTEMATIC RF SURVEILLANCE & TARGETED ASSET EXFILTRATION
Subject: Unauthorized Industrial BLE Mesh Infrastructure Deployment
Complainant: Andrii Kempa (Ex-Managing Partner, Weltrade / Hashing24)
Legal Reference: US District Court, Central District of California (Case No. CV25-8022-JFW(KS))

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This submission documents a persistent, transnational pattern of physical and digital interference targeting a FinTech executive. The observed activity involves industrial-grade Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) mesh nodes deployed in public and controlled environments, enabling proximity surveillance, coordinated tracking, and potential data exfiltration related to proprietary Nano-Chip and quantum encryption research.

II. CONTEXT OF TARGETING
Following the termination of high-level corporate engagement in Los Angeles, the complainant experienced sustained pressure, including occupational downgrading attempts and physical threats. The targeting pattern indicates interest in intellectual property associated with Neuro-Quantum Systems and silicon-level vulnerabilities in containerized environments (e.g., BIP-360 concepts).

III. RF FORENSIC FINDINGS
Data collected across urban infrastructure (courthouses, police facilities) and isolated terrain (Wilson Canyon) demonstrates consistent presence of coordinated BLE activity.

Hardware Signatures

• Industrial Identifiers: Repeated detection of B4JA / B3BA / B4FA prefixes, consistent with Telink (TLSR82xx) and Realtek embedded BLE SDK ecosystems.
  
• Telematics Devices: rPP20 / DLDNFE modules (ThinkRace/Topin class) exhibiting static UUID persistence (>31 days), inconsistent with BLE privacy standards (RPA rotation).
  

Behavioral Characteristics (C2 Indicators)

• Deterministic Timing: Fixed broadcast lifetimes (10s, 18s, 50s) indicating firmware-level TTL control rather than OS-driven behavior.
  
• Synchronized Termination: Near-simultaneous cessation of advertising across multiple nodes, consistent with centralized command execution (e.g., HCI-level control).
  

IV. ESCALATION INDICATORS
Documented incidents aligned with RF observations include:

• Physical Attacks: Recorded assaults with medical and police documentation (LAPD / Costa Mesa PD).
  
• Environmental Exposure: Reported toxic exposure events with measurable physiological effects.
  
• Data Loss: Repeated compromise of storage devices containing encrypted research data.
  

V. CONCLUSION
The repeatable detection of industrial BLE mesh signatures across unrelated environments supports the presence of a mobile, coordinated RF infrastructure. The observed timing determinism and synchronization patterns are consistent with managed embedded systems, not consumer devices.

This case warrants independent investigation into:

• Supply chain origins of B4JA-class hardware
• Use of BLE mesh systems for proximity surveillance
• Potential implications for hardware-level security and cryptographic asset protection

Technical Appendix & Logs:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5570872.msg66269664#msg66269664

This reply is off-topic and unhelpful, because the thread title is "Is Hashing 24 still operating?".

Hello, regarding the draft BIP-360 (P2QRH) and the QuBit project: while the transition to Falcon/Dilithium protects the mathematical integrity of a transaction against Shor’s algorithm, I am concerned about the physical layer de-anonymization of the signing hardware itself.

Over the last few months, I’ve conducted a series of BLE Forensic Isolation Tests across Los Angeles (from DTLA to remote mountain trails). My data shows that modern BLE/IoT stacks are forming coordinated, non-stochastic mesh networks that effectively "fingerprint" physical locations and devices, regardless of the address type used on-chain.

The Evidence (803 device records across 5 locations):
My analysis of 7 sessions (including urban centers like Melrose and isolated spots like Wilson Canyon) reveals a persistent coordination pattern. For instance, in Session S4 (Central Library), I observed a "Max Wave" of 59 devices terminating their broadcast in a single synchronized event within a 96s window. Even in zero-infrastructure mountain areas (M1-M3), devices like rPP20 maintained static UUIDs for over 31 days, violating BLE privacy standards.

The Problem for BIP-360:
Falcon signatures are significantly larger (~10x-20x) than ECDSA/Schnorr. This requires more processing time and longer radio-silence-breaking transmission windows. If the silicon-level BLE/IoT stacks contain factory-level "debug" backdoors or coordinated termination triggers (as my logs suggest), the moment you sign a "quantum-safe" bc1r transaction, you are potentially broadcasting a unique RF-fingerprint that links your physical identity to your UTXO.

Question for the developers:
How can BIP-360 ensure privacy against silicon-level backdoors? Does the proposal consider mandatory "Radio Silence" protocols for signing devices to prevent key-to-device correlation during the extended signing window of post-quantum algorithms?
For those interested in the raw data on these coordinated BLE clusters and the "Mountain Isolation" proof, I’ve posted the full forensic logs here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5570872.msg66506991#msg66506991

1. BIP 360 doesn't enforce Falcon or other QC resistant cryptography usage.
2. BIP 360 output type is P2MR, not P2QRH.
3. BIP 360 address use bc1z prefix, not bc1r.

[ABCbits]

Edit: shortly after i create this post and report their post, 3 of those account got nuked.


If you ask whether neutral tag works, check this post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5575985.msg66467314#msg66467314.


User: ContentWriter

Additional information (optional):
* This user received at least 4 neutral tag with reason spamming or speaking nonsense.
* This user received at least 1 accusation of spamming with AI, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg64254917#msg64254917.

List of post:

This post is unhelpful since it's only agreeing with quoted post.

The main issue I see in LN is setup. Not many people have the patient to learn how to set it up correctly and even if they try, it's still so uncommon that most people who know about Bitcoin prefer the simpler on-chain payment. If LN could be made easy to use, there's no reason why merchants and customers won't use it. It would be nice for a UI to enable the switch from on-chain payment to LN by just flipping a switch instead of the laborious configuration involved in LN.

The mentioned issue is misleading, since another user already mention there are ways to accept LN without technical knowledge on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5578124.msg66535532#msg66535532.


User: Cryptomann4562

Additional information (optional):
* This user received at least 2 neutral tag with reason spamming with AI.

List of post:

Plain spam, because mining is still alive today and new block regularly mined.

This post is unhelpful since it only rephrase/repeat what other member have said, in particular https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5573854.msg66387862#msg66387862.

This post is unhelpful, because it doesn't answer question of the thread.


User: Claudio973

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:

This reply is off-topic, because the thread topic about Bitcoin mining difficulty, not how hard to mine Bitcoin.

Mining Bitcoin through phone is actually hard but we can use our phones to mine other cryptocurrency and actually convert them or use them to buy Bitcoin. I have seen a situation where a friend of mine uses his phone to mine Bitcoin back in the year 2021 and he generated 1 btc while doing it. When you have the  right website where you can mine using phone, everything will be possible and you can use it to generate Bitcoin.

Other users explained why mining with phone can't obtain that much Bitcoin,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5570249.msg66529403#msg66529403
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5570249.msg66529461#msg66529461


User: JetSeason

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:

Joining mining pool won't help because OP of that thread mention they only own some computer (no ASIC).

Mining in Iran is still technically possible, but the war and energy situation have made it riskier and less predictable than before. Iran became a big mining hub because of cheap subsidized power, but that same grid is now under strain and subject to outages and even potential disruptions from conflict.

More background on how war and energy pressure could impact mining:
https://www.wired.me/story/irans-crypto-sector-was-a-lifeline-through-sanctions-war-could-shut-it-down

It's not technically possible, when internet on Iran is almost down 100% according to https://mastodon.social/@netblocks/116209365909674855. Other news also report some area experience electricity outage.

[ABCbits]

User: Skjadoon

Additional information (optional): Some of his post only repeat or rephrase what other member have said earlier on same thread.

List of post:

So anyone able to help me figure this out its on an old legacy wallet from a wallet.dat file of mine and I did encrypt it but can most likely hash the password I put I have a good idea on what it may be but if you know how I can bypass this I will give whoever 10k reward its been so long since i messed with this stuff an I was way smater back then.

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/addresses/btc/1ApiCgLSysQFeF7V2MFTEHiRsep7AR8Pyx right here is the wallet I got from a dump on receiving addresses on the .dat file for proof

Try BTCRecover with your password guesses and a GPU

Don’t share wallet or keys seek reputable help if stuck.

This post is unhelpful, because other members already give similar suggestion. For example,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5552058.msg65638090#msg65638090, my post that suggest to use BTCRecover
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5552058.msg65690945#msg65690945, suggestion to use different recovery software.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5552058.msg66507189#msg66507189, suggestion to seek reputable service.

Only ASIC miners can mine Bitcoin; phones and even top CPUs or GPUs can't compete. Phone mining is just a scam.

This post is also unhelpful, because many members already mentioned same things. Few examples,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5551347.msg65612076#msg65612076
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5551347.msg65612240#msg65612240

So as long as you use secure tools, there’s no real risk losing coins just because your public key is exposed

it’s mainly a privacy concern, not a security one.

This post mostly rephrase and summarize this earlier post, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5551973.msg65636739#msg65636739.

[ABCbits]

User: Kryptonite788

Additional information (optional):
* There's possibility this user spamming with AI/chatbot, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66561811#msg66561811.

List of post:

--snip--

This idea makes sense from a systems efficiency perspective but in reality, it conflicts with how bitcoin determines ownership, verification and fairness and I agree with you that running a full node has become noticeably stressful over time but there’s a key part we need to understand , you don’t need to store everything to get the correct benefits of a full node there are practical ways to deal with the whole “blockchain is huge” problem and using pruned nodes is one of them even if it only allows you keep recent blocks ,you will still verify everything and disk usage will drop noticeably while security still remains the same so it’s a win win .

1. Other members already suggest about pruned mode, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5576349.msg66471543#msg66471543.
2. User @FrankS already mention the goal is also reduce download size, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5576349.msg66482425#msg66482425.
3. About conflict with verification/ownership, his idea actually store the current state on the chain.


User: Repeat06

Additional information (optional):
* I suspect this user spam with AI/chatbot.

List of post:

It's partially off-topic since it doesn't respond to idea suggestion on that thread.

1. Statement "If we buy Bitcoin from all other wallet chains and store it in our main wallet, then we can protect ourselves for some time." doesn't make sense.
2. The link actually lead to thread created by @Lauda, so his claim doesn't make sense either.

[ABCbits]

User: Misa Amane

Additional information (optional):
* This user receive at least 1 accusion of spamming with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66576112#msg66576112.

List of post:

To me, this feels less like a Bitcoin wallet and more like a thin wrapper around Strike services.

Using OAuth 2.0 for login already indicates that user access depends on a centralized provider. That directly contradicts the core idea of self-custody. If the wallet cannot function independently of Strike, then calling it a “wallet” is somewhat misleading I think it’s more accurate to describe it as an account interface.

Features like push notifications and biometric login do improve convenience, but they don’t address the fundamental question: who controls the keys?
If key management is not fully local and verifiable, then the user is simply trusting another layer without gaining real sovereignty.

Another major issue is transparency. For a project at version 0.0.8, I would expect clear documentation on:

1. How keys are generated and stored
2. Whether any data is routed through external servers
3. How the Coinos integration actually works under the hood

So far, these aspects are either not clearly explained or seem to be missing, which makes it difficult to properly evaluate the security model.

To put it simply: without removing centralized authentication dependency and without clear proof of self-custody, this doesn’t offer much advantage over using Strike directly.

If the goal is to build a serious Bitcoin wallet, then the priority should be trust minimization, open architecture, and independent key ownership before adding convenience features.

1. The OAuth 2.0 for Strike login actually used to buy/sell Bitcoin. It's likely it's optional feature, just like most other mobile wallet.
2. The wallet website already address who controls the key/coin, FAQ section.

Cypher Box software is open for auditing and it’s safe to the extent you know how to operate it. Your Lightning Account funds are not controlled by you but by an L2 custodian service provider. The Hot Vault is self-custodial and you own the key to it but you can never trust a an internet-connected phone for large amounts. The Cold Vault is the safest storage method and doesn’t require you to trust your phone, funds cannot be sent anywhere without an authorization from your hardware wallet device.

Cypher Box is not a custodian. It provides a 3rd party API connection with  Lightning custodian. It also contains self-custodial storage modules (Vaults). You can withdraw to your self-custodial Vaults upon reaching an economic Withdrawal Threshold.

User: zeuner

Additional information (optional):
* First 3 posts mentioned created on same thread. 2 of them deleted by moderator.

List of post:

Plain spam, author of the thread already mention his idea doesn't delete previous blocks/chain before the armageddon.

1. While BCH have larger maximum block size, their blockchain size currnetly have smaller size. Proof on https://cash.coin.dance/stats and https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/charts/blockchain-size.
2. There's not much correlation between token price and blockchain size.

Also, why should it weaken long-term value storage? As long as an address has a balance, it would appear in the Armageddon block. Not a single Satoshi would be lost.

More accurately, it would weaken _trustless_ long-term value storage. People would be expected to trust the Armageddon block if the whole effort is supposed to bring any advantage. But many users use Bitcoin exactly because it minimizes trust in single parties.

Another user explain issue of this reply on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5576349.msg66527090#msg66527090

[DireWolfM14]

User: Misa Amane
~

Also, AI word salads, or at the very least, AI translations.  I've noticed many of this user's posts are getting deleted, but according to BPIP only one has been deleted by mods.

[LoyceV]

I've noticed many of this user's posts are getting deleted, but according to BPIP only one has been deleted by mods.

BPIP isn't loading, but modlog shows 5 matches for this user. Too bad he already earned 7 Merits, that's a huge motivation to keep spamming.

[ABCbits]

User: Easteregg69

Additional information (optional):
* This user receive at least 2 neutral tag due to spamming.
--snip--

This user continue to spam on Bitcoin Technical Support board, https://bitlist.co/search?author=Easteregg69&board_id=4&limit=20&sort_by=date_desc. He also got 2 additional negative tag and 1 neutral tag since my previous post. So i decide to change my neutral tag to negative tag.


User: Nick Finney

Additional information (optional):
* Majority of his post already deleted by moderator, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66586715#msg66586715.

List of post:

If you're trying to optimize node performance, check if you're using compact blocks. They cut sync time in half. Also, make sure you're not running full validation on every block. You can skip that for non-critical nodes.

1. This post is totally off-topic because the thread's title is "J. Lopp's Post-Quantum Migration BIP".
2. Compact block is useful if your node's mempool already have most TX, so other node just send the compact block (rather than full block) that have smaller size.

[ABCbits]

User: H.Hussein

Additional information (optional):
* I wouldn't trust his recovery service.

List of post:

Hi

i have a old wif key but it only has 34 out of 52 characters
and also address & publickey if that helps somehow.


is there any way i can recover this 

"Regarding your 18 missing characters in the WIF key: Please understand that standard CPUs/GPUs will never crack this. You need a massive cluster and custom algorithms that optimize for the Base58 checksum. I work with a professional recovery team that has specialized FPGA hardware for exactly these cases. Do not share your partial key with anyone publicly. If you want a serious, confidential recovery attempt, let's discuss the technical details in private."

"Please understand that standard CPUs/GPUs will never crack this" is wrong, because @notkim stated he have public key and @nc50lc have demonstrated how to brute-force it (while using the public key) on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5580016.msg66608242#msg66608242.

[LoyceV]

* I wouldn't trust his recovery service.

If you want a serious, confidential recovery attempt, let's discuss the technical details in private."

He's not the only Newbie shitposting attempting to scam in that thread. The other Newbie hasn't been banned yet after 3 deleted posts in that thread alone, so he'll just keep trying.

[ABCbits]

* I wouldn't trust his recovery service.

If you want a serious, confidential recovery attempt, let's discuss the technical details in private."

He's not the only Newbie shitposting attempting to scam in that thread. The other Newbie hasn't been banned yet after 3 deleted posts in that thread alone, so he'll just keep trying.

Nice catch, i'll tag this another spammer/possible scammer as well.


User: MrToshi

Additional information (optional):
* I wouldn't trust his recovery service.
* Another user briefly explain red flag of his service on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5580097.msg66609993#msg66609993.

List of post:

Promoting his service on inappropriate/wrong board.

* He tried promoting his service 2 times, when earlier attempt deleted by moderator.
* From quick google search, there's no software with name "BitcoinWifHashCracker" or "WifHashCracker", although there are few software with similar name. So his suggestion isn't exactly helpful since other people can't be sure which software refer to.


User: tridentobedient

Additional information (optional):
* I made this report, partly because old account less likely to get nuked for spamming.

List of post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579263.msg66611798#msg66611798

The actual quoted post doesn't contain clickable text "geometry game 2". This is common case of "hidden" SEO spam, where the spam link added few days after creating the post. Otherwise, it's just plain spam post that agree with other user.

[Satofan44]

Useless signature spammer, and the last paragraph just rewrote my own words. Please do your magic @ABCbits.

Donneski

...and in my opinion the main bottleneck is not the size in itself but the consequences of the size on nodes who verify transaction.

I understand the distinction you’re tryna make but practically, they’re tightly linked. The size is what actually creates those consequences on nodes so it’s really hard to treat them separately.

...Attempts like LevelDB optimization or hot utxos caching in memory still do not solve the fundamental bottle neck.

What you said is true but that doesn't mean that they were meant to fully solve it. They just help manage the impact as things scale.

New reasearch paradigms like utreexos...in my opinion it shifts the liability to much towards the user.

To an extent, your opinion is valid but don't you think it'll be more like redistributing the cost than pushing it unfairly? The burden has to exist somewhere.

I just wanted an authentic and comprehensive answer from someone who can answer my original question.

The straightforward and consistent answer to your question is that the cost can be moved or reduced but definitely not removed.

[Donneski]

Useless signature spammer, and the last paragraph just rewrote my own words. Please do your magic @ABCbits.

I'm not a signature spammer, I even use bot to browse the forum in order to contribute effectively, the reason I was notified here.

About re-writing your own words; I was even sad that I didn't read your response, if I had read it, there wouldn't be any need adding to the thread. You were unintentionally ignored because I use mobile phone. I noticed that some users are sometimes ignored which I don't initiate.

I'll have to read your response now, if it answered the question wholly, I'll consider to del mine if it doesn't add any new thing to the discussion.

[Satofan44]

Useless signature spammer, and the last paragraph just rewrote my own words. Please do your magic @ABCbits.

I'm not a signature spammer, I even use bot to browse the forum in order to contribute effectively, the reason I was notified here.

The post is signature spam level, I have not looked deeper in your post history.

I'll have to read your response now, if it answered the question wholly, I'll consider to del mine if it doesn't add any new thing to the discussion.

It is really best to avoid this section all together than to leave some vague or generic posts, I have seen some higher ranked members with established reputations do that at times too. At least you are apologetic and willing to retract your behavior, that is better than most users tend to do. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time and remove my tag after you remove your post. Please do not repeat this. My answer is comprehensive enough and covers almost anything that users could bring forth, only the users with the best technical expertise could bring some better information to it.